Standing Committee D

[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]

Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill

Andy Reed: On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. I see that on the list of Committee members for today I am listed as Mr. James Reed. I am sure that my four-and-a-half-year-old son James would be in some difficulties in this Committee, however, as he started school only last week. I am not sure which he is more frightened of—being told off by the head teacher or being told off by the Whip for not being present. I should be grateful if you would make sure that the name is corrected to Mr. Andy Reed.

Eric Illsley: The hon. Gentleman's problem is a printing error. Suffice it to say that I know who he is, so I shall be able to call him to speak. He is listed as Mr. Andy Reed on the Division list. I shall see that the printing error corrected.Clause 15 Abolition of levy

Clause 15 - Abolition of levy

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in
clause 15, page 10, line 11, at end insert 
 'subject to receipt of the agreement of the Office of Fair Trade,'.
 I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. We have made great progress under your co-Chairman, Mr. Sayeed, which I hope we shall continue. 
 The second part of the Bill deals with the Horserace Betting Levy Board. The Committee will be aware of the relevant history. Until the 1960s, money was transferred from the bookmakers to the racing industry through a voluntary arrangement, but in the early 1960s more formal arrangements establishing the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the levy that goes with it were put in place. However, many people in the industry and the Government have been seeking for some time a different arrangement that removes Government interference and regulation. As the Bill is a deregulatory measure, we are pleased to support the Government's proposals, as I am sure the equally deregulatory Conservative party is. 
 You will be aware, Mr. Illsley, from reading the record of our deliberations that at the end of Tuesday's sitting the Minister seemed to think that the Liberal Democrats were not keen on deregulation, but I can assure him that we are. That is why we are happy to support the Government's intention, which is broadly supported in the racing industry, to abolish the board and the levy and to find an alternative arrangement. 
 As the Committee is only too well aware, the problem is that there is now some doubt about the 
 alternative developed by the board, the industry and the bookmakers because of the involvement of the Office of Fair Trading in the industry and sport of horse racing. As a result, there is considerable doubt about whether the proposed mechanism, which primarily involves the sale of data to the bookmakers, will be possible. I was delighted to hear the Minister say on Second Reading that he was aware of that problem. He would be, as he has been closely involved, and he went on to say that, as a result of the concerns that had been expressed, the Government had decided to extend the life of the levy board to September 2006. As the industry agrees, that is a sensible move. However, the Bill contains nothing to ensure that we can be confident that a satisfactory and agreed alternative will be put in place before the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the levy are abolished. 
 We know that the industry, the Government and the bookmakers intend to find an alternative that ensures that money continues to go into racing for a number of important purposes, including improvements in the breeding of horses and the advancement and encouragement of veterinary science and education for the improvement of horse racing generally. There is a clear desire for a mechanism to be found to achieve that result. Racing brings about £70 million or £80 million into the industry for those activities, so an alternative is necessary. The problem is that we do not know what that alternative will be. We know that there are question marks about the existing arrangements. The Government have acknowledged the difficulty and have sought to assist in bringing various parts of the industry together to find a way forward in respect of OFT rule 14 issues and, if necessary, to look for an alternative way forward in the light of any OFT ruling, although we do not know when that will happen or even what it will be. 
 The amendment is an attempt to find a different way of ensuring that nothing moves forward until we are sure that what happens will not be rejected again by the OFT. It seeks to introduce a new mechanism that is agreed by all the relevant parties and will have the agreement of the OFT. That will ensure that instead of having a fixed date, as the Minister is suggesting, we can leave things open until those issues are settled. We are also conscious of an impending European Court case on the British Horseracing Board's ability to hold pre-race data centrally. Clearly, that issue must also be borne in mind and resolved before any new solution can be found. 
 When I was in discussion yesterday with the British Horseracing Board, I was delighted to hear that there is a new impetus in the industry to find a new way forward. We, the board and the industry want to ensure that, whatever the solution is, it will be sustainable and ensure that funds continue to go into the industry. The amendment provides a simple mechanism to ensure that we do not move forward unless we are sure that we have got the solution right and that it is not likely to fall foul of the OFT.

James Paice: May I add my welcome to you, Mr. Illsley,
 and express the hope that our progress under your chairmanship will be as fast as it was under that of Mr. Sayeed? Having heard your sotto voce comment earlier, we must wait and see.
 The OFT issue is critical to part 1 and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is right to refer to it. I must admit that I am not entirely convinced that his amendment is the right way of dealing with that issue because it relates to the abolition of the levy rather than to the successor arrangements. I have tabled amendments to later provisions in this part of the Bill to require the transfer plan, which I think is the central point, to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. 
 I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman is simply suggesting that the OFT should approve the abolition of the levy, which is not really the point. I cannot see that there is a problem with the abolition of the levy, and whether something is put in its place is not a matter for the OFT. I know that that is not his intention, which I think is exactly the same as mine: that we should not proceed with the totality of part 2, which covers abolition of the levy and the transfer scheme that goes with it, and abolition of the board, until we are certain that there is a robust mechanism for alternative funding of the racing industry, as well as the sale of data and media rights, although that issue has largely been resolved. We briefly discussed the sale of data on Tuesday and I shall not detain the Committee by going through it again. 
 However, it is abundantly clear that the number of race courses would decline if OFT rule 14 were to stand. That would mean a break-up of the competitive nature of the balance between the racing provider and the consumer in the main bookmakers in bidding for data rights. As the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said on Second Reading, it seems absurd that the OFT should propose that race course owners should not be allowed to group together to sell data rights when bookmakers can group together to buy them. That seems a slightly odd position for the OFT to adopt. 
 I welcomed the Minister's inferences—they were no more than that—in that Second Reading debate. He made it clear that the Government were sympathetic to the problems that would arise and referred to a letter that the Secretary of State had sent to the OFT, but which cannot be published. I take it—perhaps I am rash to do so—that the letter expresses concerns about the potential impact of the rule 14 notice on the racing industry. I hope that the OFT will amend its stance and that the industry will come to an agreement in its discussions, as that is critical. As I intimated, I shall speak to amendments later that would enable us to put off rule 14 until we are convinced that there are alternative orders. 
 None the less, I entirely support what the Government are trying to do. The levy is an anachronism, particularly with regard to the role of the Secretary of State in settling it. The concept of shifting to a much more commercial arrangement is right. I simply want to ensure that we do not jump 
 before we know what we are jumping into and that there are viable alternative arrangements for the racing industry. 
 I believe that that is what the hon. Member for Bath is suggesting in his amendment. In principle, I support what he is trying to achieve. Let us see what the Minister says. My gut feeling is that the amendment does not achieve its intention, but the hon. Member for Bath is right to say that the current deliberations of the OFT are central to the future of the levy board and what comes after it. I hope that the Minister will take that on board. We support the end of the levy, but we want to ensure that we do not get rid of it before we know exactly what will replace it.

Richard Page: May I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley? If you have a chance to read the record of the previous two sittings, you will discover that they have been conducted with good humour on all sides. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), my new-found friend the hon. Member for Bath—we will leave his wife and her postcards out of this—and I have made various requests of the Minister, who has put his hand somewhere near his heart, or perhaps his wallet, and said, ''Trust me. I shall ensure that all your concerns are recognised in the fullness of time.'' We poor trusting souls have agreed to that, and we are looking forward with great anticipation to the Report stage.
 Like my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, I appreciate and understand the thrust of the amendment but have doubts about whether it would achieve its basic intention. Equally, I understand why the Government want to get rid of the levy board. It is unacceptable that a Secretary of State should be drawn into what is essentially a business transaction, and I can appreciate their wanting to say goodbye to the board as soon as possible. 
 However, in discussing the amendment, we must also be careful that we clearly understand the value of the levy board. Many a time I have been to various race courses, particularly in the winter. I stand on corrugated iron—

James Paice: On the roof.

Richard Page: Or on the roof. I stand on concrete steps under a corrugated iron roof, the rain drips down, it is windy and I think, ''I really am enjoying this.'' This is where the levy board plays an important part. Over the years, it has been responsible for seeing many of our race courses upgraded, because it wants to make racing more enjoyable. Is it a coincidence that the number of people going racing has over the past couple of years gone from 5 million to 6 million? That is just the start. The number of people going to the races will climb higher and higher.
 If we were at the filibustering stage, I would read out all the contributions that the levy board has made to race courses over the past few years. The list is most impressive, but I will not do so. I just want to make the point that the levy board has spread its money between the big courses and the small. It gave £600,000 to 
 Fakenham, which, dare I say it, is one of the more remote courses. People need a guide dog and a map to get there, but it is a pleasant place. Indeed, Fakenham is very up and down, but that contributes to the individuality of British racing. In addition, the levy board has given £3.5 million to Sandown, where Members can see some new stands. 
 On top of all the support that the levy board gives to race courses, it gives important support to the veterinary side of racing. I have been to some of its seminars and the work being put into understanding the conditions of the horse, and how the horse population can be cared for and advanced, is most impressive. Indeed, the efforts of the levy board, under the leadership of Rob Hughes, are exceedingly valuable and we must not see them go. They must be protected in some shape or form. 
 On the abolition of the levy board, there are a variety of ways in which the Secretary of State can move to see it taken on into another arrangement. I have to point out, however, that the financing of racing does not involve a solid, guaranteed income stream. It depends on a number of things, including media rights. 
 We watch with considerable concern the attheraces discussions that are taking place. The deal that has already been done for the race courses may be put in doubt. We must ensure that whatever we do means that the successor to the levy board can continue and continue to be financed, and that there is not a short-term deal that collapses in a short time. That is where the OFT puts a potential spanner in the works. Its remit is closely drawn—too tightly drawn—and there is not a proper mechanism in government to rein it in if necessary to ensure that we see the overall picture, and achieve a balance rather than a tight, focused view. 
 I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. I do not think that the amendment would achieve the result that my new-found friend, the hon. Member for Bath, and I want. I suspect that we will get another of those statements from the Minister giving the overall picture. He will put his hand on his heart and say, ''Trust me. This is the way it will work.'' I look forward to what he has to say.

Richard Caborn: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. As a fellow Yorkshireman, I know that you will be very fair in your deliberations. We will expedite things as effectively as the Government have in previous sittings. If the hon. Member for Bath reflects on the official record, he will find that we were debating competition, not deregulation. What worried me was a gradual slide into some anti-competitive coalition between his party and the official Opposition. I was getting a bit worried about the political direction that he was taking, and I had to remind him that we are trying to bring more competition to the industry, which is why I resisted the amendment. My concern politically was that Opposition Members should not get into such a coalition. [Interruption.] They have obviously taken my advice.
 I understand the concern about the OFT, but what hon. Members have said this morning is true. There is a realisation that we need the OFT, the BHB and the industry to come together and find a solution. All the feedback this week from the discussions with the BHB and the OFT was fruitful. The last board meeting of the BHB was moving in that direction in that it created an understanding between the industry and the sport so that a resolution to the rule 14 problem might be found. I am cautiously optimistic that we can resolve it. 
 As the hon. Member for Bath said, I have already taken the precautionary measure of extending the levy by one year because of the need to deal with fixtures, the business plan and so on. It was sensible to bring some certainty to the process. I made the point on Second Reading, and I make it clearly again today, that it is our intention to end the levy. Therefore, the Government cannot agree with amendment No. 48. The levy board should be abolished when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is satisfied that the time is right, not subject to the agreement of a public body with no particular responsibility for it. That is what the amendment would require. 
 I understand the anxiety and uncertainty in relation to the OFT inquiry. For that reason, I extended the levy for one year. What has been happening this week will find a solution—I hope—to the dispute between the OFT and the racing industry. With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster: I am grateful for the Minister's response and, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, we will have an opportunity to continue the discussion in a few minutes when we debate subsequent amendments. One thing is absolutely clear: there is unanimity about the need for a solution concerning the desire to end the levy and the board, but we must do so only when a sustainable alternative has been agreed. I am delighted to hear further confirmation from the Minister of the Government's determination to play a role in helping to bring that into play.
 I am more than happy to withdraw the amendment, not just because of the assurance given by the Minister, but because I happen to believe that there are better ways of achieving what I want. We may come to those when debating subsequent amendments. 
 I give the Minister notice that when we come to further discussion of the issue, I shall refer, as I have in previous discussions relating to the Bill, to the regulatory impact assessment. If it will help him to start doing his homework, he might want to look at pages 32 and 33, which touch closely on the issue. With those remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Kali Mountford: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in
clause 15, page 10, line 26, at end insert— 
 '(3A) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless satisfied that arrangements are in place for— 
 ( ) funding for the employment of veterinary surgeons at horseracing grounds; 
 ( ) adequate funding for the care of retired race horses'.
 I, too, am a Yorkshire MP and, as a Yorkshire person, a respecter of tradition and one who knows what side their bread is buttered on, so may I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley? 
 The horse racing industry cannot operate at all without dealing with the welfare of the horses. The industry has a better record than some sports that use animals. For example, it has a better record on horse welfare than greyhound racing has on the welfare of greyhounds. That said, the welfare of those animals derives from the contribution from the levy in two ways, which are indicated in the amendment. The first, obviously, concerns the tracks themselves and the payment of vets when they are attending horses. Horses are often injured during a race, or need assistance before it, so it is important that vets are present. Nobody would argue that they should not be. 
 Further to that, at the end of their career, horses are often valued by their owners and trainers and they go on to have very productive, and sometimes lucrative, lives after finishing racing. Nevertheless, that is not the case for all horses and about 4,000 per year have welfare concerns that are brought to the industry's attention. Of those, 300 need some charitable intervention, which is why the industry set up its own charity. Charities depend on the vagaries of the good will of the people giving donations, but one dependable part of that charity is the donation from the levy. 
 The Minister will notice that the amendment is probing. We need an assurance that that valuable part of the industry—the horses—will have the best care during their working lives and when their working lives have come to an end. I seek the Minister's assurance that some robust mechanism will be put in place post-levy to ensure that vets are present at the race course, that their fees will be covered and that the charitable contributions to the welfare of horses at the end of their racing lives will continue. Race horses cannot curl up on a couch like a greyhound, but there are plenty of things that retrained horses can do so that their lives can be extended comfortably and appropriately when they have earned such a lot for the industry during their working lives.

Andy Reed: I never want to repeat a speech that has been made by an hon. Friend, but I would like to reiterate the point that we seek clarification that there is a commitment to horses' welfare. A great deal of work is done and it is acknowledged that the contribution from the levy board, while minimal in terms of percentage of turnover, is significant to the amount that the charity raises.
 It is necessary to understand that the vast majority of horses are treated excellently after their retirement from racing. However, the fact that the charity has been established and the acknowledgement that 300 or 400 horses a year require charitable intervention mean that it would be a mistake if the many positives that 
 will come out of the Bill do not include a statutory requirement that an amount of money such as that which comes from the levy should continue to be given. We seek the Minister's reassurance that, if not necessarily through the amendment then at least in other ways, that will continue.

Richard Page: Naturally, I am immensely sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) are trying to achieve, because I have been involved with horses all my life and want them to be properly looked after. However, I am slightly curious about the words
''funding for the employment of veterinary surgeons at horseracing grounds'',
 which appear in the first part of the amendment. 
 I have always travelled under the impression that a race meeting cannot be held unless there is a certified vet in attendance. Have the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Colne Valley introduced the amendment because there has been a failure to have vets in attendance? If so, that is most serious and I am certain that the racing bodies will want to know about it.

Andy Reed: My experience is that that is not the case. I understand that some payment for veterinary services at the course or race ground comes from the levy, so we seek an assurance on the continuation of that good practice. I do not think that we have that assurance in the Bill as it stands. All we are trying to do is ensure that the good practice continues. The hon. Gentleman is right that veterinary attendance at courses is vital and the race cannot go ahead unless vets are there. The issue is the funding for that, and I am sure that race course managers would be happy with the amendment on the basis that they will not pick up the tab themselves.

Adrian Sanders: I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley and her seconder on moving the amendment because it is important to place it on the public record. Although I do not think that the Minister is likely to come up with a robust mechanism that is in accord with the amendment, I am sure that he can provide firm governmental intent on the public record to which we can refer at a later date.
 As the hon. Lady said, this aspect of the levy gives financial support for the care and welfare of racehorses. She mentioned that about 4,000 horses leave the industry every year. That is an extraordinarily high number, although when one considers the number of meetings and horses that are involved, and the number of years that they can compete during their lifespan, it is perhaps not so surprising. About 300 horses every year need support. Of course, there is one horse missing from those figures—Shergar—and we still do not know what has happened to him. 
 Only a tiny percentage of the levy is used for such welfare, but it is a significant amount because its impact is so great. I hope that the Minister will provide some assurance of his intent to ensure that it continues. The money also helps the improvement of 
 breed support, which should not be forgotten. It is used not only to ensure that vets are in attendance at race meetings, but to advance and encourage veterinary science, which is of enormous benefit to all. Its overarching purpose is the improvement of horse racing, and I am sure that the industry would not wish to lose sight of that.

Nick Hawkins: I wish to underline some of the points that have been made, and to express some personal views. I welcome the fact that the hon. Members for Colne Valley and for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), both of whom I know well and for whom I have a great deal of respect, have tabled the amendment, as it is important to put such matters on the record.
 As I made clear on Second Reading, I do not have the detailed knowledge of all aspects of racing that my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) have. However, I have some knowledge of racing, of the preparation of racehorses and of veterinary science, not least because my father, early in his career, taught at the Royal Veterinary College, and several family friends were and still are vets. 
 From my experience of visiting racecourses and, as I mentioned on Second Reading, of having an uncle who was an owner of point-to-point horses, I have found that the standards of care in racing are tremendously high. I welcome the statement from the hon. Members for Colne Valley and for Loughborough that the purpose of their amendment is to obtain on the record the confirmation that those high standards will continue. 
 I want to place on the record the fact that standards are taken very seriously by all whom I have met in racing. If any hon. Members want that point reinforced, they might be interested to read a superb book that I was lucky enough to receive as a Christmas present and read over the recess, which is the autobiography of Lord Oaksey—somebody who could properly be described as the doyen of racing journalism. It is called ''Mince Pie for Starters'', and a great deal of it demonstrates the care for the welfare of horses that not only he had, but everybody in racing had. 
 If the lessons that Lord Oaksey sets out are followed, we will see a continuation of the care of horses that, as he makes clear in his book, has been improving over the course of his life.

Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman's statement about the current state of racing is absolutely right. Without going through my connections with racehorse owners, I would like to tell him of some cases of abuse of horses during training many years ago. Although those practices have been wiped out, I would not like to see a return to them. That is partly the purpose behind the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I have already said that I understand that she and the hon. Member for Loughborough tabled the amendment to enable us to have this short debate. I simply wanted to place on record my own observations and links, which suggest to me, as the hon. Lady has just confirmed,
 that standards are now very high. All of us who care about racing and horses want that to continue.

Richard Caborn: More right hon. and hon. Members have probably spoken on this amendment than on any other, which shows that we are a nation that loves its animals.
 Amendment No. 54 prevents the Secretary of State from abolishing the levy board unless she is satisfied that arrangements are in place to fund vets at racecourses and to care for retired racehorses. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley that it is an important issue, as participation in the debate has shown, but the amendment would not affect the provisions in the Bill. 
 We have always made it clear that the important work done by the levy board will not be neglected when it is abolished. For that reason, clause 16(6) makes it clear that, when the levy board's assets are transferred, they will be used for their current statutory purposes. The BHB, to whom the bulk of the assets will be transferred, has already given us an undertaking that it will continue to fund public-interest areas such as veterinary research and education. It will also continue to provide funding to welfare projects such as Retraining of Racehorses, which have in the past received levy board grants. 
 Everybody acknowledges that the levy board has done an excellent job for 40 years. We have simply transferred into the Bill the statutory purposes referred to in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, so it does not need to be changed. I do not believe that either the Jockey Club or any future regulator of the sport would allow the well-being of racehorses, and therefore the future of the sport, to be jeopardised by inadequate veterinary provision at race meetings. 
 We have taken what is working well in the 1963 Act, with which I think everybody concurs, and put that into the Bill. With the assurances that the BHB has given us about the way in which those assets will be used, I have every confidence that the Bill takes full account of all the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley raises in her amendment. I therefore ask her to seek to withdraw it.

Kali Mountford: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for those assurances. As a fellow Yorkshire Member, I know that he is a man of his word and can be trusted. If he is satisfied that he has received the appropriate assurances from the industry that, under the new arrangements, horses will be protected, I have no misgivings and I beg to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Property of the Levy Board

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in
clause 16, page 10, line 29, after 'specified', insert 'assets,'.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 14, in 
clause 16, page 10, line 40, after 'specify', insert 'assets,'.
 Amendment No. 15, in 
clause 16, page 11, line 1, after 'whom', insert 'assets,'.
 Amendment No. 16, in 
clause 16, page 11, line 9, after 'any', insert 'assets,'.

James Paice: This little group of amendments could cause immense ructions, but, on the other hand, the Minister could easily accept them, and we could then press on.
 I tabled the amendments because I find it odd that the Bill refers repeatedly to the transfer of ''property, rights and liabilities'', but does not use the word ''assets''. In his remarks on the previous amendment the Minister referred to the transfer of assets. I think that most of us understand that we are talking about a transfer plan of everything to do with the levy board, including its assets. The asset that I am most concerned about is the capital fund, which currently stands at about £50 million. It can loosely be described as a revolving fund: it lends money to race courses for improvements, so there is a constant inflow and outflow of resources. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire said earlier, it is a huge contributor to the improvement of race courses. He referred to the capital sums granted to courses, which ranged from £100,000 for Perth, a remote but important race course, up to very large sums, as he said, for Sandown, Newbury and York, the famous race courses. That money is vital. The levy board has advanced more than £180 million in project loans since the inception of the capital fund 34 or 35 years ago, which has led to a huge improvement in race course facilities, and about £450 million has been committed for 2001–05. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with all of that and is as supportive of it as I am. 
 I am concerned, however, that the word ''assets'' does not appear in the Bill. As a layman—I am not a lawyer—I do not believe that the word ''property'' includes capital funds and assets. It might include physical assets, but I would not normally include cash in the bank or outstanding loans as property. Therefore, I seek to insert ''assets'' into the relevant parts of the Bill after ''property'', to make it absolutely clear that we are talking about, if may use the word, the totality of the levy board, and to ensure that all of it is transferred into racing. 
 I could be sceptical and say that it is conceivable that the word ''assets'' has intentionally not been used because the Treasury has its eyes on the capital fund and does not want to transfer it. I am sure that the Minister will reassure me that that is not the case, but I hope he will understand that there is a real concern that, if ''assets'' is not in the Bill, although he used it in his earlier remarks, the clause and transfer plan are not as inclusive as we want them to be. 
 Clearly the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory and the National Stud come under the heading of property and should be transferred. As I said on Second Reading, both these important institutions are in my constituency. The Government have already begun 
 discussions about their future, but, as I understand it, no real discussions have taken place about the future of the capital fund. I know that the Racecourse Association does not want it to be transferred to the BHB, but would prefer it to be set up as a free-standing charitable trust to continue the good work of the National Stud over 35-odd years. I hope that the capital fund will be part of the transfer plan, but I should be interested if the Minister would say what the Government's thoughts are about its future, as the thought process on many other aspects is already well advanced. 
 I strongly believe that the word ''assets'' should be in the Bill. The Minister has used the word, and I cannot understand what objection he can have to including it after the word ''property''. I cannot believe that it detracts from the Bill. The Minister may try to convince me that legally it is not necessary, but it would still be helpful and comprehensive if it were in the Bill and I hope that he will agree to include it.

Don Foster: I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire on using the amendment as an opportunity to raise the importance of the capital fund. He wishes to add a word to the clause did not concern him earlier because the same phraseology is used in clause 2 about the transfer of the Tote. ''Assets'' is not mentioned there, but perhaps there is a difference between the two and a reason why it should be added to clause 16 and not to clause 2. Be that as it may, it is important to obtain some comments from the Government about the capital fund.
 Earlier, I said that until recently we all knew the new arrangements. They were not in the Bill but we knew the intention. As discussed, the intervention of the OFT has made that extremely difficult. It is worth remembering that in the previous arrangements the intention clearly was to follow the line of argument advanced by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. If we consider the report on future funding produced in October 2000 by the BHB, along with its recommendations for the basis of the hoped-for new deal to replace the levy, it said: 
''The Capital Fund, subject to Government confirmation, will be transferred to BHB. BHB will then transfer it to a Trust for the duration of the agreement between the BHB and RCA to be administered by three Trustees. The Fund will be set initially at £50 million and be available to racecourses and other organisations which are currently HBLB beneficiaries for capital improvements.''
 It is clear that the original intention was a transfer to the BHB, and that by working with others it would have established a trust with several benefits, not least that it would have been a tax-efficient operation. 
 In any new plan that is developed for the replacement of the levy, it is important to hear from the Minister whether he envisages the arrangement recommended by the BHB, which is fairly widely accepted and close to the views expressed by the Racecourse Association, being in the scheme.

Nick Hawkins: In the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, he said that, although he was not a lawyer, he would prefer the phraseology to be more complete. From my background as a lawyer, considering how commercial
 agreements are interpreted, although commercial agreements are, of course, rather different from Acts of Parliament, I recall that the guiding principle on which commercial lawyers are always trained is to ensure that any phraseology is as complete as possible for the avoidance of doubt.
 In about 12 years in the House of Commons, I have tended to come to the same conclusion about legislation. Since the leading case of Pepper v. Hart, which set out that Ministers' comments at the Dispatch Box can be used as a guide to the intentions of Government and Parliament, it has become particularly important to press Ministers, even if they are not prepared to amend a Bill, at least to clarify meaning. 
 It would be helpful if ''assets'' were added to ''property'' in the relevant places described in the amendment. As a lawyer, I think that it adds something to the general term ''property''. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire is right, and I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment or at least make it clear that the Treasury does not have some hidden agenda and that all the assets, not merely a limited category of property, will be transferred.

Richard Caborn: I must admit that I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. When I met my officials last night, I asked for an interpretation and whether assets were included. We had the ''Oxford English Dictionary'' on the table. They reassured me that the legal interpretation of ''property, rights and liabilities'' included assets.
 As I said, I have sympathy with the amendment, but the lawyers assure me that the word ''asset'' does not need to be included in the clause because it is already incorporated under property, rights and liabilities. 
 On the capital fund, yes, the BHB has given us assurances. As the hon. Member for Bath said, the amount is about £50 million. It has broadly—not wholly—been used for interest-free loans for the development and upgrading of race courses. There has been flexibility even under the levy board. The fund was not used solely for interest-free loans. Hon. Members who were close to the discussions with the OFT and the industry will know that there are possibilities for restructuring the governance of the sport and its commercial activities. It would not be very wise to accept this amendment, which would tie hands and leave no flexibility for redefining the governance and funding of the sport. People who are close to the negotiations know that they are ongoing. 
 I give clear assurance that assets are incorporated in the wording, and my officials have reassured me that when the capital fund is handed over to the BHB it will broadly be used as it is at present. The amendment would tie that down such that flexibility would be difficult.

James Paice: Let me separate the two issues. I understand entirely what the Minister says about the future of the capital fund.
 I return to the word ''assets''? I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman questioning last night the use of the word ''property''. When his lawyers advised him that it was not necessary, did they come up with any reasons why it would not be helpful to include it in the Bill? Would there be anything wrong with including it? In other words, would he humour me by accepting the amendment? Unless a lawyer can produce a reason why not, I cannot see why the wording should not be more explanatory, even if we accept the advice about the definition of property.

Richard Caborn: Too many words. [Laughter.] That is the advice.
 As the hon. Gentleman well knows—he is an old hand at this game—we can go on expanding, but there must be a final position. My officials and I had an interesting debate last night. In fact, we had three dictionaries out and were cross-referencing property to assets and assets to property. It was a good discussion. The hon. Gentleman wants reassurance about the assets, and I am convinced that they are included. Nothing detracts from the capital fund, as an asset, going to the BHB. That is absolutely clear and covered by the wording. 
 We could continue writing more and more words into the proposed legislation. That would make more and more money for lawyers such as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Let us keep the legislation short, precise and focused. My lawyers assure me that the wording deals with all the concerns that have been expressed this morning. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

James Paice: Even though the Minister did not actually put his hand on his heart, it was there metaphorically. I am reasonably reassured by what he said, and particularly by the fact that he made a challenge and has been reassured. Given what my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said in relation to Pepper v. Hart, it is important that the Minister has stated things clearly on the record. In the light of that, I am reasonably persuaded that the financial holdings of the levy board, and in particular the capital fund, will be part of the property that will be part of the transfer plan. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in
clause 16, page 10, line 36, leave out from 'modification' to end of line 37.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 20, in 
clause 16, page 11, line 7, leave out subsection (5).
 Amendment No. 18, in 
clause 16, page 11, line 14, at end insert— 
 '(6A) Any transfer scheme made or approved by the Secretary of State under subsections (2) or (4) shall be subject to approval by an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

James Paice: This is the group of amendments that I referred to in an earlier discussion. It represents the fall-back position. Like everyone else, I do not know the outcome of the OFT matter, or the European
 Court of Justice case, which we have not really referred to this morning. Those two issues are overhanging the racing industry. As far as the OFT is concerned, I share the Minister's optimism that a solution can be found, and I hope that it will be. Nevertheless, that solution has not been found yet. Therefore the matter hangs over the industry. Should a solution not be found, and should the OFT decide, despite everybody's efforts, to stand by its rule 14 notice published last April, the consequences for the racing industry could be horrendous. There would also be consequences for the racegoer and for the punter, although there are those who would disagree with that. The situation would certainly be serious.
 I know that I raised similar issues in relation to part 1when I discussed the need to come back to the House of Commons with an affirmative resolution before the Tote was disposed of. It is right for the transfer plan to come back to the House for approval, which is the gist of the amendments. It is essential that the House be given a chance to reflect on the impact of the OFT conclusions, when they have been made, and on the European Court judgment about the related issue of concern to the bookmakers. We need that opportunity to reflect. 
 We need also to consider what exactly the Minister proposes to do in the transfer plan. I am reasonably relaxed and comfortable about the structure as laid out. As he has already implied, he has picked up large chunks of the 1963 Act and reiterated them in the Bill. He talked about what the property, the rights and the liabilities of the levy board should be used for. Clause 16(6) is quite comprehensible, although I have an amendment relating to it. I also understand and accept what he said in his last contribution about where he wants all the things to go. 
 I return, however, to the point that I have made over and over again, as have the hon. Member for Bath and others. We cannot be certain about what will happen, partly because of the OFT and the European Court, but partly because of a possible change in Ministers, or a possible change of heart by the Treasury, which will have huge influence over the transfer plan and will doubtless have to approve it before the Secretary of State can. It is right that the House of Commons should be allowed to make the final decision, which is why I tabled the amendment that would allow for affirmative resolution. 
 I do not doubt the integrity of the Minister or the Secretary of State, or the intention to do as the Government have repeatedly said—make the transfers, set up the forensic laboratory under the BHB, set up the National Stud as a charitable trust and transfer the capital fund, as the Minister has said. However, I will never be entirely satisfied until I know that those things have happened, which is why I would prefer the Government to allow the House to approve the final transfer plan. 
 The amendment is intended to ensure that the transfer scheme, as drawn up by the industry and the 
 Government, meets the desire universally shared in the House as to what should happen to the property assets, rights and liabilities of the levy board. 
 I hope that the Minister understands the intention behind the amendment. I am sure that he will want to resist it because, as I said in an earlier debate, Ministers always do. It is the right way forward, however, bearing in mind the huge uncertainty in the racing industry and the desire of so many Members from all parties to ensure that the future of racing in the absence of a levy board is as strong, if not stronger, than under the present arrangements. It is only right and proper that the genuine concern and interest of Members should be reflected by allowing the House to approve the transfer plan. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Richard Page: Now that my nerve is broken, it will be only a few seconds before I conclude my remarks. I would like to support the thrust of what my hon. Friend has put forward so eloquently. The Committee is fully aware of the importance of the levy board, and I suppose that I should declare an interest at this stage. As we know, the levy board earmarks a considerable sum for prizes for successful race horses. I travel in the hope of attaining some of that money at some point, but I have to say that my success has not been of any notable consequence. Knowing the paranoia of the House on matters relating to the declaration of interest, I am only too willing to mention that.
 I am interested to find that the ''Concise Oxford English Dictionary'' is now written into law as the determinant of parliamentary legislation. I wonder whether the law may be challenged in the courts if that was relied on too strongly, but perhaps the Minister will achieve some status in the more arcane records of parliamentary milestones. In fact, he may have achieved such a milestone in the clause. 
 I am sorry to tell the Minister that I do not have his confidence in the OFT. I have already commented that its remit is very narrowly drawn and that Ministers do not have the ability, if it is necessary, to rein it in. However, I share his view and hope that all the parties involved will reach an amicable agreement so that racing can get on with worrying about how it will develop and promote the sport, rather than being held back in interminable discussions on how to reach a solution. 
 In supporting what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, I have a question to put: if an affirmative resolution is agreed to make a decision in the House on a scheme, could that resolution overturn an OFT direction? I sincerely hope that the House has supremacy in the matter. If it does not, I would have to say to my hon. Friend that his amendment is not worth the paper it is written on. If the House has that supremacy, I hope that the Minister agrees to the amendment so that the House can decide on how racing should progress.

Don Foster: I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire for the clear reasons that he has given. Many of us have said that we support the Government's intention to abolish the levy and the
 board. We believe that that is the right way to go, but we are anxious to know what is going to replace them and anxious to be confident that there will be a secure and sustainable source of funding for horse racing.
 The sums indicate how important the issue is. The 2002–03 levy will bring horse racing about £72 million. However, it is accepted by many people that were the original proposals—now in doubt because of OFT rule 14—to have been implemented, the sums may have been significantly greater. Part of the proposed package was to discuss how the additional sums might be used, yet all that has been thrown into doubt even though it is important and we do not know how the matter will be resolved. 
 We heard from the Minister that we should not, at this stage, tie down the details of what will happen to the capital fund of £50 million. However, not tying people's hands means things are not clear. All that indicates great uncertainty, so it makes sense to have some mechanism by which Parliament, which vested powers in the Secretary of State to determine the levy, can have a say in determining and agreeing the alternative to it. 
 There is a great deal of uncertainty, one area of which I draw to the Minister's attention because I promised that I would refer to it. Earlier, we deliberated on the helpfulness or otherwise of the regulatory impact assessment provided by the Government. I note from the very helpful—in fact, brilliant—document produced by the Library that it is extremely generous to the Government in at least one respect. On page 26, under the heading ''Benefits of abolishing the Levy Board: the Government case'', the document says: 
''Once again, the regulatory impact assessment accompanying the new Bill has a useful summary of the case for the Government's preferred option''.
 I had a look at that useful summary of the Government's case. It sets out the benefits and costs of both the status quo and abolition. I worked on the assumption that if one subtracted the costs from the benefits, a net value would be obtained for both. I say to the Minister that the very helpful document in which he adds up the sums demonstrates that there is far more money to be made and that we would benefit from retaining the status quo. I am not always convinced, and on this occasion I am not choosing bits selectively. I am looking, in the current jargon, at the totality of the table provided. Unlike the Library, whose document is otherwise excellent, I did not find that a particularly useful summary of the Government's case. I hope that the Minister gives us the benefit of his thinking on that aspect of the regulatory impact assessment. 
 On a much more serious point, there is still a great deal of uncertainty, as acknowledged by the Minister and the Government. We need to have some method by which we can have parliamentary agreement to a new scheme as and when it is developed, and as soon as possible, because that would benefit the industry. With the OFT and European Court issues still in the wings and there still being a great deal of uncertainty, we need a clear way forward. The amendment provides it.

Richard Caborn: On the general question, if we waited for total stability before doing anything in the industry, we would never do anything. I did not know much about horse racing when I came into the job, and I probably do not now, but if I have ever seen an industry create problems for itself, this is an absolutely classic example.

Don Foster: I am sorry the Minister says he knew little about horse racing when he came to the job. He will recall that in the interview he gave on taking up the job he said:
''I know nothing about horse racing''.
 He did not say that he knew a little.

Richard Caborn: I go round the track and I have been to the odd race meeting, but I shall leave that on one side. I reiterate that if we waited for the industry to have a period of stability during which legislation could be introduced with absolute certainty-—that is what everyone wants—the status quo would remain for ever more because nothing would happen. That is the background against which the drafting of the Bill should provide reassurance. Due to the turbulence that always seems to exist in the industry, we are trying to draft the provision in a way that will bring certainty to the transfer of assets. Indeed, the clause states at subsection (6):
''The Secretary of State shall not make or approve a transfer scheme under this section unless satisfied that any property or rights transferred will be used or exercised''
 for the purposes laid down. 
 Let us take a worst-case scenario of no BHB, although I cannot imagine that. There would be a transfer and the way it would be done is clearly laid down in subsection (6). The amendment is superfluous and it would add nothing. 
 The Secretary of State would act on the advice of the levy board and it would be the board's duty to prepare the scheme of transfer as laid down in subsection (6). There is reassurance that, whatever body is involved in the transfer, there will be a duty to carry that out. The advice will be prepared professionally by the levy board, and all those reassurances should be there. That is our intention—I hope that all of it will be transferred to the governing body, the BHB—and we want it to be the reality. If that turns out not to be the case, I believe that all the safeguards that hon. Members are asking for exist. 
 In reply to the hon. Member for Bath, as I said earlier, the regulatory impact is but one matter to be considered when making a judgment. I hope that from time to time it can inform debate, but no more and no less than that.

James Paice: I hear what the Minister is saying, but I am not entirely sure that it fits with the explanatory notes that the Government circulated with the Bill.

Richard Caborn: I read from the Bill.

James Paice: I know that the Bill is more important than the explanatory notes and even the ''Oxford English Dictionary''. The explanatory notes are clear at paragraph 69:
''Subsection (4) gives the Secretary of State the power to make a transfer scheme herself if the Board fails to comply with a direction to make a scheme or''—
 this is the important bit— 
''she decides not to approve a scheme submitted by the Levy Board.''
 That gives her absolute power, and she can make her own scheme if she does not like what the levy board submits. That is the critical point, but I do not think that the Minister's comments reflected the fact that things do not have to be done with the approval of the industry or the board.

Richard Caborn: I did not say that. I said that advice would be given and that the levy board would have a duty to prepare the scheme, with advice going to the Secretary of State. That advice would be taken in conjunction with what the Bill states at subsection (6):
''The Secretary of State shall not make or approve a transfer scheme under this section unless satisfied that any property or rights transferred will be used or exercised for the purpose of''
 the activities listed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). That is the duty on the Secretary of State. Those reassurances exist, and if we reflect on the debate they should satisfy all the concerns that have been raised by hon. Members.

James Paice: I stated in my opening remarks that I welcomed subsection (6), which is a direct lift from the 1963 Act. It is important that the Secretary of State cannot make a transfer scheme unless satisfied that those criteria are met. The point that I was making before the Minister intervened is that at the end of the day she is not forced to take the advice of the industry—she can make any transfer scheme she wants, subject to the requirements of subsection (6).
 I am therefore disappointed that the Minister believes that it is not necessary for Members of this House to have any more say in the matter. In this instance, it would have been a reasonable concession from the Government to allow the House to approve the final transfer scheme, if for no other reason than that there are so many hon. Members who are interested in, and concerned about, this issue, although hon. Members speaking to this group of amendments have also described other valid reasons. But that is not the position that the Minister is prepared to adopt, so we will not be able to make progress at this stage. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in
clause 16, page 11, line 12, after first 'veterinary', insert 'or equine'.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 22, in
clause 16, page 11, line 14, after 'improvement', insert 'or integrity'.

James Paice: The Minister needs to get his dictionary out again here, because these are exploratory amendments. I fully recognise that the clause comes from the 1963 Act, and that as the levy board has
 developed since then we must assume that the its activities continue to be compliant with the 1963 Act.
 I tabled these two amendments—in fact there is a third one that I should have tabled but did not, but I shall mention the issue—because I want to challenge the Minister to ensure that current practice, and what might be done in the future in close connection with that, would remain within these criteria. I sought to insert the word ''equine'' after the word ''veterinary'' simply because, as a layman, I am not absolutely certain how far the term ''veterinary science'' goes in relation to the work that is currently being done. 
 Let me just explain to the Committee a couple of points. First, the Equine Fertility Unit in my constituency is significantly funded by the levy board and does a vast amount of research into horse reproduction. The Minister may be convinced that this is veterinary work as opposed to research, but it is an issue that needs to be clarified. There is also the issue of the work done by the Horse Racing Forensic Laboratory. I was interested to see in paragraph 48 on page 32 of the now oft-mentioned regulatory impact assessment that there is a distinction between ''veterinary'' and ''forensic'' work. It refers to levels of expenditure on integrity services including, in brackets, ''forensic technology'', and then refers separately to ''veterinary sciences''. The work of the Horse Racing Forensic Laboratory is central to the integrity of horse racing, as it concerns drug testing and ensuring that horses are—if I may use the expression—running cleanly. I am not entirely convinced that that is covered by the word ''veterinary'', and that is why I sought to introduce the word ''equine'' to make sure that all forms of equine science are covered, including those that some might not accept as directly veterinary science. It is almost a tautology, but it is a point that needs to be clarified. 
 I should have sought to insert the word ''equine'' between ''veterinary'' and ''education'' as well. I refer again to the work of the National Stud, one of the country's leading institutions in providing training and management development in equine activity and looking after horses—the sort of issues to which the hon. Member for Colne Valley referred earlier. I am not sure that equine education is the same as veterinary education. Although I have not tabled the amendment, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that educating people to look after and handle horses is covered by the terminology. 
 Amendment No. 22 seeks to add ''integrity'' after ''improvement''. It goes back to the work of the Horse Racing Forensic Laboratory, which is the world leader in developing the means of ensuring the integrity of racing and that, as with other sports in which drugs may be involved, everything is done fairly. One might argue that it is part of the improvement of horse racing, but I am not convinced. It would be helpful if the Bill made it clear that the integrity of horse racing forms part of the remit of the transfer scheme. 
 I accept that the levy board is already attending to such matters. One could argue that the board must be covered by those expressions because it will operate under this legislation. However, it is an opportunity to 
 review the terminology and to ensure that we have got it right, bearing in mind that we have had 35 years of development since the 1963 Act. The work of the levy board and of the various institutions to which I have referred has moved ahead considerably, and I would hate to think that the excellent work that they do could founder because, at some later stage, we find that the legislative definitions have not kept up with their work. 
 I seek the opportunity to ensure that the terminology is right not only for the present, but for what we foresee to be the development of the services provided through the levy board. I hope that the Minister understands my concerns and will at least get his dictionary out when he responds.

Richard Caborn: Again, we had a very good discussion around my table last night about the words that should be included. The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that for the past 40 years the 1963 Act has worked pretty effectively, and that therefore so have we. It is well tried and tested and that is why we have lifted from the Act large chunks of the provisions that we are discussing and placed them in the Bill. The track record demonstrates that the levy board has acted responsibly and that the funding has been there. All the hon. Gentleman's points have been covered in the past 40 years.
 On amendment No. 21, a large part of what might be termed equine science would be subsumed within veterinary science; that which is not would fall under the third category, which is the improvement of horse racing, at least to the extent that is relevant to the issues covered by the Bill. 
 On amendment No. 22, money spent on the integrity of horse racing would also fall under the category of improvement of horse racing in general. The levy board provided funds in the past to the vital areas, and therefore nothing in the Bill would prevent the future owners of the board's assets from doing likewise. 
 Both amendments are superfluous. The track record of the past 40 years and the fact that we have lifted the clause from the 1963 Act should both provide reassurance. It is better for continuity and a smooth transition from the current arrangements to the new ones if those who have understood and worked with them for the past 40 years continue to do so. There will then be no misunderstanding, and one would hope that it would be business as usual. 
 I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw the amendment.

James Paice: Certainly we all want business as usual and we want those activities to continue.
 I do not dissent from what the Minister has said. I simply wanted to take the opportunity provided by the Bill to update the language of the legislation to ensure that we are properly covered. I think that some of us may have had a more enjoyable evening than the Minister last night, if he spent all evening poring over the dictionary. However, if he is reassured that the wording covers not only what has been done but current activities, I accept what he says. As I have said, the Committee gives us an opportunity to improve 
 legislation as well as to change it, and legislation that has been in place for 40 years does not necessarily meet today's needs. However, the Minister has assured me that the words are not necessary, so for that reason, if for no other, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 3 agreed to. 
 Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 - Abolition of the Horserace Betting Levy System: Consequential Amendments

Kali Mountford: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in
schedule 4, page 34, line 24, at end insert— 
 '(ca) protecting animals from being harmed or exploited by betting'.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 56, in
schedule 4, page 35, line 7, leave out '(c)' and insert '(ca)'.

Kali Mountford: The amendment again probes the Minister's intentions. He offered us a pretty stout belt earlier today when we were discussing the welfare of animals, both at the track with vets and post-retirement.
 The amendment would give the Gaming Board responsibility to monitor animal welfare at the track, including such aspects as the height and type of jump that the animal is asked to address, the type of stabling available at the track and the animal's welfare during the race. We would therefore be assured that the present good practice would continue well into the future. 
 I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me, as he did earlier, that the welfare of animals at the track is already assured, in which case I shall consider what he says. All members of the Committee have agreed today that the racing industry has greater concern for the welfare of animals than other sports have, but I want to see that carried through to the future. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.

Nick Hawkins: Again, I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says in reply. I am glad that the hon. Lady raises welfare concerns, as she and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough did earlier.
 Many of the animal welfare organisations, not only the RSPCA but organisations such as the International League for the Protection of Horses, do worthwhile welfare work, including in some cases arranging for the care of former racehorses. As I regularly find myself driving past the ILPH headquarters near Snetterton when visiting my farming family in Norfolk, I thought that this would be a useful opportunity to place on record the important work that some of those charities do. I see the hon. Lady nodding. I know that she is aware of the issues. 
 I look forward to hearing what the Minister says. I agree with the hon. Lady that racing has a good animal welfare record. This small group of amendments gives us a good opportunity to place on record the worthwhile work that racing, those connected with racing and reputable animal welfare charities do in this area.

Andrew Rosindell: I endorse the amendment. The welfare of animals should always be uppermost in the minds of people who take part in sporting activities. There is a greyhound stadium in my constituency, so I am concerned about the welfare of greyhounds. Of course, that is not encompassed by the Bill, but the same principle applies.
 I hope that the Minister will take on board the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Colne Valley. It is vital that we ensure that the matter is dealt with by the Bill. In his response, would the Minister clarify any discussions he may have had with horse welfare organisations? I would particularly like to know whether he has had any discussions with the British Horse Society or other groups that take animal welfare to heart with regard to sporting activities.

Richard Caborn: Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 would require the Gaming Board to consider animal welfare when deciding whether to approve a race course for betting purposes. Again, I understand and appreciate the good intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, which lie behind her amendment. However, with respect, her amendment is a misjudgment of the purpose of the amendments we are making to section 13 of the 1963 Act.
 The Gaming Board will be given the task of approving race courses for betting, and foremost in their consideration must be the three principles that we decided on the basis of good gambling regulation. To remind the Committee, those are: keeping betting crime-free, ensuring it is fair and open, and—very importantly—protecting children and the vulnerable. It would be inappropriate, therefore, for the Gaming Board to consider animal welfare matters alongside those. Animal welfare, although most important, is not strictly relevant to the orderly conduct of betting on the racecourse.

Adrian Sanders: It strikes me that there is a connection between welfare, betting and potential corruption when a decision has to be taken on whether a race should take place because of weather conditions. Would that not mean that the consideration of animal welfare comes within the terms of reference that the Minister has given?

Richard Caborn: No, it would not be a decision of the Gaming Board. The stewards would make a judgment on weather conditions, and we are talking about the legislation. The amendment would also place an unnecessary burden on the Gaming Board, which understands that it does not have expertise in this area. Many of those who know the members of the Gaming Board will know that they do their job very efficiently,
 but they do not have the expertise in the area referred to by the amendment.
 Nevertheless, I take note of the underlying concerns that have prompted the amendments relating to welfare. I shall make sure that my officials bring the matter to the attention of my colleagues in DEFRA who have responsibility for animal welfare. As an aside, I would say in answer to the question raised about relationships with industry that I work closely with DEFRA on several issues relating to horses, and this is one of them. We have responsibility for racing and gambling, but my colleagues have much wider responsibilities as far as horses, and animal welfare, are concerned. We work closely with that Department on an official and at a political level, which has been shown recently in several Government initiatives that have operated across Departments. With that, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw her amendment, but I shall raise the issue with my colleagues in DEFRA.

Kali Mountford: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I have listened carefully to his reply. I am concerned that the welfare of animals should be considered during betting. Certainly an animal's known condition during a race is a betting issue. That might be covered if we dealt with criminality in racing, to which my right hon. Friend has alluded. It could also be argued that this part of the schedule meets some of my concerns—for example, about race fixing that involves the fences. However, I have wider concerns. My right hon. Friend rightly cited the useful work done by DEFRA, but I am still worried about the design of the course and the stabling of animals. Perhaps I can take up those issues later when I have had discussions with DEFRA.
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 18 - Tax

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in
clause 18, page 11, line 38, after 'providing', insert '— 
 (a)'.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46.

Richard Caborn: It has always been the Government's intention to waive any tax windfall that arises from the transfer of the levy board's assets. We also want to ensure that the levy board and any recipient would not face a tax disadvantage as a consequence of the transfer. The assets have to be used for specified purposes that benefit racing, and they will continue to be used in that way after the transfer.
 The amendments, which add a reference in the clause to stamp duty land tax and elaborate the clause in other ways, will allow Treasury regulations to be made so that the transfer can take place without any unintended tax consequences. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 44, in 
clause 18, page 11, line 40, at end insert— 
 '(b) for anything done under or in consequence of a transfer scheme to have or not have a specified consequence, or to be treated in a specified way, for the purposes of a tax provision; 
 (c) for anything done in connection with, or done by a person with rights in connection with, anything that was at any time transferred under a transfer scheme, to have or not have a specified consequence, or to be treated in a specified way, for the purposes of a tax provision; 
 (d) for a tax provision not to apply, or to apply with modifications, in respect of anything transferred under a transfer scheme; 
 (e) for anything transferred under a transfer scheme to be treated in a specified way for the purposes of a tax provision; 
 (f) for the withdrawal of relief (whether or not granted by virtue of the regulations), and the charging of tax, in connection with anything done under or in consequence of a transfer scheme where a specified event occurs, or specified conditions are satisfied, whether on or after the commencement of the scheme; 
 (g) for a power under this Part, or anything done in exercise of a power under this Part, to have or not have a specified consequence, or to be treated in a specified way, for the purposes of a tax provision.'.
 No. 45, in 
clause 18, page 11, line 42, leave out 'or'.
 No. 46, in 
clause 18, page 11, line 43, at end insert 
 'or stamp duty reserve tax'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
 Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 19 and 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Eleven o'clock till this day at half-past Two o'clock.